Walter Chad Brannon v. State ( 2017 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-16-00547-CR
Walter Chad Brannon, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. B-15-0755-SA, HONORABLE THOMAS J. GOSSETT, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Walter Chad Brannon was convicted by a jury of the offense of possession
of more than one gram but less than four grams of methamphetamine, a third-degree felony. See
Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(c). Appellant was also found by the trial court to have
prior felony convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a controlled
substance, which enhanced the punishment to habitual offender status. See Tex. Penal Code
§ 12.42(d). The court then sentenced appellant to 35 years’ imprisonment.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a
brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements
of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45
(1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies
of the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record,
file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this
Court; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along
with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). Appellant filed a pro se brief.
We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might
arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe
v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal
is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment
of conviction.1
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of
his case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition
for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.
P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary
review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that this Court
overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See id. R. 68.2. The petition must be filed with
the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). If the petition is mistakenly filed with
this Court, it will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(b). Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See id. R. 68.4. Once this
Court receives notice that a petition has been filed, the filings in this case will be forwarded to the
Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.7.
2
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Goodwin
Affirmed
Filed: April 7, 2017
Do Not Publish
3